1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Because he disagrees with you and shows you are wrong in your position.why are you quoting Luther ?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Because he disagrees with you and shows you are wrong in your position.why are you quoting Luther ?
Here's the trade-off. If Calvin was right, you worship and idol and hate the true God passionately.Dave, I appreciate conversing with you on this forum but Luther is not the source of my position about what God or man is like. I would caution you on making any man your final authority on any doctrine. We have a wonderful and glorious Bible and, if you are saved, the Holy Ghost indwelling us to teach us all truth.
1 Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
One thing I know absolutely and for sure, the Holy Ghost does not teach Calvinism through the words he has given us in his Bible. To get that teaching one must go to the words of men like Luther.
The word "atonement" does not mean salvation. You have a figure of atonement in the OT ceremonial Law of Moses that is bedrock teaching of the atonement of Christ that it pictures. Israel, as a collective entity, were atoned for by blood on the sixth feast day of their annual 7 feasts. Do you think the atonement that day was only for those Israelites who had a heart for God? It did not negate any of the personal sacrifices that God required Israel to bring to him. God was propitiated for collective Israel for a year by the blood that was put on the altar and the sins were carried away by a fit man into the wilderness where God did not remember them.Does that include placing "unlimited" in front of atonement by claiming that Christ died for those that He failed to save ... the tares, the goats, those whom he "never knew"?
Paul was stood listening to Stephen before his stoningAdam
Abram (Abraham)
Moses
Samuel
Saul (Paul)
In the old testament they did not believe in 1 cor 15Adam
Abram (Abraham)
Moses
Samuel
Saul (Paul)
Did the "atonement" in the Law of Moses cover the national sins of Egyptians who worshiped Set as their God? No, it was an atonement for God's chosen nation, and only for God's chosen nation.The word "atonement" does not mean salvation. You have a figure of atonement in the OT ceremonial Law of Moses that is bedrock teaching of the atonement of Christ that it pictures. Israel, as a collective entity, were atoned for by blood on the sixth feast day of their annual 7 feasts. Do you think the atonement that day was only for those Israelites who had a heart for God? It did not negate any of the personal sacrifices that God required Israel to bring to him. God was propitiated for collective Israel for a year by the blood that was put on the altar and the sins were carried away by a fit man into the wilderness where God did not remember them.
How ironic! You actually believe in the blood thirsty God that everyone accuses Calvinists of preaching about (even though we don't). So nothing will sate the appetite of God to destroy everyone except a steady stream of blood (OT) and the Torture and Death of His Son (NT). That is not what THIS CALVINIST believes the blood in the OT and NT is all about. It was not GOD that needed to be fixed by the blood.God was propitiated for collective Israel for a year by the blood that was put on the altar and the sins were carried away by a fit man into the wilderness where God did not remember them.
... and tried to stop the stoning because Stephen was the human agent that God (in his limited ability to save) was forced to use to change the heart of Saul. Stephen shared the gospel and changed Saul's heart at his stoning. Is that REALLY your argument?Paul was stood listening to Stephen before his stoning
No I'm simply saying we cannot say Saul wouldn't have heard the death , burial and resurection of Jesus can we ?... and tried to stop the stoning because Stephen was the human agent that God (in his limited ability to save) was forced to use to change the heart of Saul. Stephen shared the gospel and changed Saul's heart at his stoning. Is that REALLY your argument?
who cares about Luther ?Because he disagrees with you and shows you are wrong in your position.
In the old testament they did not believe in 1 cor 15
or John 3 .16
or through the hearing of the Gosepl .
God is not saving anyone without the faithful witness of another person.
80 million Lutherans, for a start.who cares about Luther ?
Can you show from the epistles how we are saved today that doesn't involve hearing the Gospel and believing it , to be saved ?So in the OT, God was able to save people all by Himself. However in the NT Era ...
So when exactly did God lose this ability to save people? Was it at His incarnation? At his Crucifixion? At Pentecost? When did our help become ESSENTIAL?
That is the part of this that has bothered my from the first post. Not the fact that God CAN use people to reach other people, or the fact that God DOES use people to reach other people, but this claim of exclusivity ... that somehow God MUST use people to reach other people. When did God's arm suddenly become short?
I already did ... Saul on the road to Damascus.Can you show from the epistles how we are saved today that doesn't involve hearing the Gospel and believing it , to be saved ?
This is the problem with Christians today . They give up their sense making to dead theologians from the Past .80 million Lutherans, for a start.
Thats the Book of Acts .I already did ... Saul on the road to Damascus.
Does Paul say his conversion is the normative experience of how everyone should be saved today? Have you seen the risen Lord ? Are you an Apostle to the Gentiles ?I already did ... Saul on the road to Damascus.
[Galatians 1:11-16 NIV]
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
Moses was not saved by believing in the death burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins .So in the OT, God was able to save people all by Himself. However in the NT Era ...
So when exactly did God lose this ability to save people? Was it at His incarnation? At his Crucifixion? At Pentecost? When did our help become ESSENTIAL?
That is the part of this that has bothered my from the first post. Not the fact that God CAN use people to reach other people, or the fact that God DOES use people to reach other people, but this claim of exclusivity ... that somehow God MUST use people to reach other people. When did God's arm suddenly become short?
Your "proof text" actually refutes your claim that "God is not saving anyone without the faithful witness of another person."
Frankly, I don't think that you have really thought through the consequences of this absolute limitation that you have placed on God's methodology of saving. By your "rules" every infant that dies having never received the "faithful witness of another person" is unsaved, and must therefore have a destiny among the rest of the unsaved. Every person in the remaining unreached people groups has also never received the "faithful witness of another person" is automatically unsaved. That would apply to every person living in the Western Hemisphere prior to the arrival of Columbus.
I edited that for you. But I would remind you "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." [2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV], so I am not sure why you are so intent on dividing scripture into such small parts (Gospels vs Acts vs Epistles).Thats the Book of Acts .